Redstate

We do NOT need ANY type of "reform" or new immigration laws. All we need to do is ENFORCE the laws that we ALREADY have. So you want a worker program? What do you call a WORK VISA?

All this "tough" talk about policing the border. I gotta see it to believe it. I think it's just the President's way of getting his amnesty plan through. He's hoping that we'll tolerate the amnesty because he "got tough" on border enforcement.

Some say "we can't just round up and deport them all". I say "hogwash!" No one said it has to be done all at once. You round up 10,000 and deport them. A few months later, you round up another 10,000, etc. So you say we can't find 'em? Just go to the Social Security Admin. and look at all those files pertaining to SSN's that don't match the name. Just visit any fast food joint, construction site, "day worker" gathering places, etc.

WANTED: Republican candidates with SPINE. To heck with the incumbents. They're no better than the liberals we vote against.

Many of the things that have gone wrong with the Bush presidency are due to the rather quaint notions that Bush holds about the Constitution.

For example, he believes that his job is to faithfully execute the laws. He believes that it is Congress' job to write them. Can you believe it? He actually expects Congress to do its job!

No president in recent memory has done that. These days, laws are supposed to be written in the old EOB by unelected 22-year-olds who got there because of who their father knows. Then they are sent down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol, where Critters on both sides of the aisle carp at "the President's bill" while amending it to rename rivers after themselves and to establish Federal Gnat and Mosquito Institutes in their home districts.

Bush has this crazy idea that his role in writing legislation is to suggest to Congress the areas where they need to write some new stuff. He doesn't understand that he's supposed to write the bill for them so that no Critter on either side of the aisle has to actually propose anything. Almost anything that gets proposed will be criticized by somebody, and it's the President's job to insulate the Critters from criticism.

This is the same thing he did with Social Security reform. He tossed a couple of ideas out there, and encouraged the Congress to come up with more. But they didn't. All they did was carp at his ideas. The same thing will happen here.

program, provided there is a zero tolerance policy towards illegal immigration.

I am actually fine with making it easier for people who want to come here to work to do so more easily.  

But I think that the US has got to crack down on the illegals.  We have to do this with regard to the immigrants and the employers-we need to make coming here illegally and hiring illegals more painful than doing it the legal way.

But I don't think a cut back or curtailing of legal imigration is called for.

I don't get why some want the country to round up all the millions of illegals and plop them back in Central America/Mexico.  I mean, come on.  Do you really think this has a chance of happening?  Do you really think now is a good time to have videos of truckloads of men, women, and children loaded into camps to await deportation?  Needless to say, analogies to concentration camps will be made around the world.  Think about the illegals who own property...will they be forced to sell at cut-rate prices like Japanese internees during WW2?

And all this for what purpose?  So the illegals can turn around, pick up a legal card, and reenter the country?  And all the while resources rounding up these people could be employed chasing down the real bad guys.

Let's face facts: decades of inaction have created a situation we're stuck with.  Maintaining hold to ideals, however noble and correct, won't solve the immediate problems of border security and guest worker documentation.  We have to cut a deal with the illegals in this country if we want to avoid the scenario described above.  Sorry.  Besides, I'd rather have workers motivated enough to be in this country to risk personal blood and treasure than some of the sorry-butt natural-born-citizens we're stuck with around here.  

"we can't just round up and deport them all"?  Who knows until we start.  When you actively seek out criminals (illegal immigrants) then you will deter others from even trying to come here and also cause some to return to their own country of their own free will.

Three things, shut the border down with more agents, issue FINES that are a deterent to any business hiring illegals and stop any type of government assistance to illegals, health care, school, SSI, section 8 housing, etc.  If they have no work or government benefits and you have agents seeking criminal aliens then they will leave.

But I don't think a cut back or curtailing of legal imigration is called for.

Did you not just contradict yourself?

I always laugh out loud when reading your stuff, Nick.

These days, laws are supposed to be written in the old EOB by unelected 22-year-olds who got there because of who their father knows. Then they are sent down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol, where Critters on both sides of the aisle carp at "the President's bill" while amending it to rename rivers after themselves and to establish Federal Gnat and Mosquito Institutes in their home districts.

Classic.

And even better, the substance is spot on.  The spinelessness we see in Congress in part comes from years of shielding by the executive dating back to FDR and the New Deal.  To be sure, Bush has also expanded executive authority, but in the area of war powers that were meant to be in the hands of the executive in the first place.  His insistence that Congress democratically find new ideas and debate them is in keeping with the traditions of our republic, but unfortunately doesn't comport with the expectations of the whiny snivelers that make up the majority of the Senate and to a lesser extent the House.

It's called a WORK VISA and we already have it! And yes, I DO advocate sending them back, 10,000 at a time. It's really pretty simple.

The one thing that no one seems to be willing to talk about is this: What in the world is wrong with Mexico?

If Mexico is so terrible that people cannot find jobs to support their families, then why don't the people there DO SOMETHING about it? What are WE doing about it (besides exploiting cheap labor)?

I lived on the US-Mexico border for over 12 years. I made friends with many "Mexican-Americans" (they'd rather be called "Americans" by the way) who taught me a lot more that you'll read about in your local NYT.

Mexico is one of the most corrupt nations on the face of the Earth. This nation has more natural resources (oil, gold, people, etc.) than they know what to do with. Yet they have this other nation, the USA, that will gladly take anyone and everyone who can sneak accross the border.

ONE THIRD of Mexico's GDP is remittances from workers in the US. Did you hear that? A THIRD! Why bother tapping those natural resources when you can export your poor who will send money home? This is the same reason why they have no welfare programs - NONE. No food stamps, no TANF, no Medicaid, NOTHING. If you're lyingon the streets about to die of hunger - then so be it! In other words, the message is, if you can't make it in Mexico then sneak into the USA.

Does anyone remember when Vicente Fox was elected? What were his "promises"? They were to rid Mexico of corruption and create jobs so the people wouldn't have to flee to the US. So much for election promises.

I could write for hours about this... the culture or corruption in Mexico and how they leech off the US. But this is but one post that will be buried by many. See my personal (non-profit) website for more details because I've written about this subject and linked to other sites that will tell you a lot more.

And finally, here's something else no one wants to talk about: If we Americans are so darned lazy (as some of us make us all out to be) that we won't take "menial jobs" then ask youself, "why not?". Well for me, if I had to make a living on $40 a day (today's minimum wage) then I would have to shack up with about 3 or 4 guys just to pay the bills. What do you think the Mexicans are doing? If you said "shacking up" - you're right! Mexican people are used to living with 2-3 generations in the same house (it's part of the culture so you can put away your "racist" flag) so bunking with 20 people is nothing to them. I'm serious folks! What would YOU do? Shack up in Mexico with 20 people to a house or starve?

Like I said, I've been there. I've talked to enough immigrants of Mexican descent to know what I'm talking about. See the website below for more.

legal immigration and illegal immigration.

I think we should have a zero tolerance policy towards illegal immmigration.  

I think we should have a more liberal legal immigration policy, that makes immigration the legal way easier and more affordable.

The problem right now is that legal immigration is a slow proccess that involves a lot of money.  People who just want to come and work, don't want to wait years to come.  They come here illegally.  Currently our system makes illegal immigration pretty easy-we don't really try hard to stop it, and the pain of getting caught isn't that hefty.  We don't go out of our way to deport (shoot some places will catch you, and release you with a court date to appear).  The fines for companies caught hiring illegals are barely a slap on the wrist.

We need to make it so that coming here legally is the preferred method, and that coming illegally isn't worth the risk.

what's necessary.  I don't think it is practical to ship all illegal aliens back to Mexico or elsewhere, and I don't think we'd actually follow through, given the emotional aspects and the demand for low wage workers in farm and other manual work.  I am in favor of an amnesty - with the possibility of citizenship down the road - so that the illegals become invested in the US and have clear rights.

But any policy is meaningless if it cannot be enforced, and our greater wealth and opportunity will continue to be a draw to the poor of Mexico and elsewhere.  We absolutely have GOT to figure out some way to actually control the border.

We should also spend more money and revise our policies to provide a better focus on integrating all aliens.  No melting pot means greater tensions.  I'm not sure I understand why we cannot require the use of English as a national language.

while I respect and empathsize withthe frustration represented in the idea of 'send them home', I have to ask:

Please tell me how we move 14 million people spread all through this country, in nearly every niche of society and the economy, and send them home?

Are you willing to be deputized for 3 or 4 months a year for this?

Let's look at that in a bit more depth.

Let's say Bush gets everything he wants.

Then, let's say a million more illegal aliens come here to take advantage of future amnesties. And, they find jobs at corrupt corporations.

What would happen if we tried to then deport all those illegal aliens? Wouldn't the same open borders race groups protest? Wouldn't the same newspapers oppose those deportations? Wouldn't the same corporations that now basically pay to keep the borders open underwrite politicians to let those million illegal alien workers stay here?

In other words, after Bush gets his dream amnesty, won't everything just start over with millions more legal workers and a continuously growing number of new illegal aliens?

The reform that's needed here involves fighting corrupt corporations and far-left race groups, not giving in to what they want. Because, they'll always want more.

What you describe sounds an awful like having been invaded and settled. You're telling me that millions of foreigners have come here illegally, and we don't have the ability to send them home if we wished?

How exactly is that different from having been invaded?

Last I heard, only Fred down at the bar wanted to do things the way you describe. I'm pretty sure he's the only person in the U.S. who actually thinks that would be a good plan.

As for the rest of us, we were kinda thinking of just enforcing the laws against employing illegal aliens and not giving them services besides emergency services. That way, most of them would self-deport. No cattle cars needed.

if a nuke, chemical weapon, etc. or even terrorists gets across the southern border and used against Americans, it will be on the President's head. Not because it happened on his watch, but because he knew there is a problem and did less than nothing to correct the problem. He called the Minutemen 'vigilantes', he seems antagonistic to those who support a tight southern border and has refused to be proactive after 9/11.

The President has not even tried to secure the border.

Are you willing to be deputized for 3 or 4 months a year for this?

Yes, actually, I am. I will take a bullet to protect my country against an invasion - which is what this is. Appearently, so are others (called Minutemen).

up to be gardeners and busboys. Not invaded, more a symbiotic relationship.

Some say "we can't just round up and deport them all". I say "hogwash!" No one said it has to be done all at once. You round up 10,000 and deport them.

This is the myth: it's just not possible/practical to deport them. Says who? You do it 10,000 at a time. Very simple. Ever heard of "Operation Wetback" from the '50's? They did it then so why not now? No one said you gotta send ALL 11 million back overnight. But to do nothing about it tells Mexico that it's OK to keep deporting (via economics) their poor to the US in exchange for remittances (1/3 of the Mexican economy). Follow the money.... Just follow the money.

Now imagine a Mexico with 11 million more poor than they already have with no way to export the them. There would be an uprising like no one has seen in our generation. The people would not put up with it. I'm sorry to say it but Mexico is a nation that actually NEEDS a civil war. Yes, the truth hurts, but think about it: If Mexico is EVER to get their economic act together, then they could actually contribute to the world economy (and be better off because of it) rather than leech off of the economy. The only way this can happen is if their people stand up & take thecountry back from the very few and powerful that run the nation. If we keep on doing what we've been doing, then you'd better learn Spanish because the Western US will eventually, for all practical purposes, become "Azteca" (google it).

"let's say a million more illegal aliens come here"

If we allowed more legal immigrants, we'd have less illegal immigrants.  It's rather basic economics.

... we moved hundreds of thousands of men and millions of tons of equipment to the Middle East for two wars. We can do anything we set our minds to. Round them up 100,000 at a time and move 'em out.

But the real solution lies in two places:

- Employers

Employers need to know that the penalty for hiring undocumented aliens is a year in jail and a $50,000 fine for each occurrence --- no exceptions for Joe Smith Roofing and no exceptions for Coca Cola. Nothing will get the attention of the CEO and the Board of Directors like a year behind bars. The fines can be used to help pay for the repatriation program. But I'd bet the fines would dry up real fast.

- Mexico

The real problem is in Mexico. These people are coming here for a better life because their country won't do anything to make it possible there. There are two kinds of people in Mexico; a small group of haves who have everything and intend to keep it for themselves; everyone else. Vicente Fox is not the solution, he's part of the problem.

Mexico is a nation that actually NEEDS a civil war

The "haves" in Mexico need to know that they are serious risk. The "haves" in Mexico have been abusing the "have nots" for far too long. Maybe we should give each repatriated Mexican illegal a copy of the plans for the guillotine?

is to do nothing? Just let it keep happening a few million a year until when?

Hmmmm.

1/3rd of all federal prisoners are illegal aliens.

That's some serious gardening.

and march them home. Of course, the end of the line would a bit over 1,000 miles from the front.

employers who hire illegal immigrants.    I think it is the easiest and cheapest way to curtail illegal immigration.     Its "Economics 101" supply and demand.    But I have difficulty believing that any administration (Republican or Democrat) is going to put Lee Scott (CEO Walmart) in jail for hiring illegals.   (But if they did, it sure would get the message across)

that Wal-Mart makes a practice of hiring illegal aliens?

Every time an illegal alien comes in contact with the government, he should be sent home.

Get arrested?  Get sent home.

Get taxpayer-funded medicine?  Get patched up, then sent home.

Apply for a driver's license?  Get sent home.

Try to put a kid in school?  Get sent home.

In fact, if we did this, it seems likely that illegals would start going back home on their own, and fewer would come to replace them.  People won't come if they know they can't make it.

Of course, I think this should also be coupled with strict and aggressive enforcement against businesses that hire illegals, too.  By cutting off the job supply, we also make it harder for illegals to get by, and discourage some from coming here or staying here.

Spot on.  Any immigration policy that does not deal aggressively with the Mexican government is just sticking our finger in the dam.

The right kind of trade agreements could actually end up benefitting the US as well as Mexico-- provided the government there straightens up.  Witness the AZ Cardinals-- they can't sell a quarter of their home game tickets in AZ, but Mexico City can't get enough.  Granted the ticket prices are a third normal value (and given it's the Cardinals, that's pretty low)-- but it's employing a fair amount of people on a liveable wage, and if it weren't making them money, I'm guessing the Cardinals GM wouldn't allow it.

The point of this ramble, I guess, is that making sure Mexicans have a liveable average income isn't just important because it will reduce illegal immigration and open up jobs to Americans.  It should also boost the market for American products-- particularly entertainment, tourism, etc.

You're failing to take into account that illegal immigration creates a second class of worker, one who is indeed second class. Those workers can be abused, paperwork isn't as stringent for them, etc. etc.

And, many companies will always prefer those second class workers. No muss, no fuss, threaten to call la Migra if they don't do what you want. How endless a supply of legal workers would it take to dissuade those companies from using illegal workers?

Can we afford to tell Mexico "no mas"? We could certainly afford to tell, say, Lithuania to take a hike, and nothing really bad would happen.

But, would bad things happen if we told Mexico to take a hike?

What would happen if we got tough with Mexico over something?

Wouldn't the fifth columnists in the U.S. (Mexican-"American" politicians like those in the California legislature, far-left "human rights" groups, etc. etc.) have a cow? Would Mexico work with the fifth columnists against American interests, as they have in the past? Would Mexico agitate their citizenry, as they've threatened in the past?

Mexico does have political power inside the U.S. For another example, their consulate visit city councils pitching those cities on accepting Mexican ID cards. Local newspapers print glowing articles about it; the local (probably corrupt or far-left) politicos give in.

To me, it sounds like we've been invaded and infiltrated. If you disagree, tell me again that we could just tell Mexico to take a hike. If we can't, then we've got a major problem. Not all invasions take place under force of arms.

really want it to do its job?  I think he sees it largely as a great check-writing machine, for use in rewarding favored industries and consituencies.

Share your view thay they are a rather toothless and inept bunch - the "chief executive" has done a great job in moving the locus of power to the White House.  This is especially noticeable under GWB, as he was not facing an opposing majoruty in either house.  This has given each member greater freedom to be irresponsible.

On one hand, if we open the floodgates to legal immigration of poor uneducated people from Mexico, that will stem some of the flow of illegal immigrants.

On the other hand, as demand for the services of smugglers goes down, the price will go down, and that will enable some to buy their way into America illegally who couldn't afford to before.

Basic economics can't tell us which effect is more important.

as well, but there is very little we can do there in any reasonable timeframe.

Europe is facing this too - the better economies are huge magnets, and they are all having problems coping with the changes in their cultures being forced on them as a result.

While in the long run we should try to push/help Mexico to clean up, it will be more productive for now to focus on border control.

You're hitting on it, of course.  To go after employers is cost-effective IF it is enforced.

I don't think it's enough, frankly.

The border needs to be physically closed.  Be it through ramping up the border patrol or building a wall (how long would that take?).  It simply has to happen.  

I think he sees it largely as a great check-writing machine, for use in rewarding favored industries and consituencies.

We sorta figured you'd see it that way.

moving the locus of power to the White House. This is especially noticeable under GWB

I call BS. The whole point of my note is that Bush is out of step with recent practice in that he neither acts like it's the President's job to write legislation, nor does he jump out there and claim credit for everything that happens.

How many times a day did Clinton get on the tube to announce that "he" was adding 100,000 police officers, or 50,000 dog catchers? Who was tasked with writing the Omnibus Blue Boss/Blue Heel Medical Insurance Bill? The guy was a one-man government. He was always flipping cruise missiles at somebody, without so much as a fare-thee-well from Congress. And you claim that this phenomenon is "especially noticeable" under GWB? It is to laugh.

Here's an idea: Let's have a sovereign, communist state 30 miles from San Diego, trading oil for arms with the Chinese.

If you do not see that this is the almost-certain consequence of what you propose, you haven't been paying attention.

painful, rather than a slap on the wrist, those companies would balk at hiring them, especially if legal immigration is easier.

You can't fix either end by itself.

In order to have a sane immigration policy you have to work at both the legal immigration end-make it cheaper and easier-as well as the illegal end-make coming here illegally painful (for both the illegals and the companies that hire them) so that it isn't worth the risk.

If the penalty for speeding was a year in jail, do you think as many people would speed?

This thought has the same flaw as raising taxes on a business.. that they will just pass the cost on to the consumer. However, for small mom and pop companies and for day labor.. this could be quite a dis-incentive to deal with illegal immigrant worker use.

Those caught using whether knowing or unknowingly using illegal immigrant labor will ,as part of their penalty and in addition to a fine, pay for the deportation cost of sending them back per the 'catch and return' program.

Of course this concerns, interior enforcement of illegal labor... something we aren't exactly seeing stressed by the Prez in this plan. However, this idea could be part of the 'catch and return program'.

The idea is to make the cost of violation (at least somewhat) unknown and drive fear into most employers. If they know the fine is $$$ dollars they can analyze and determine their risk threshold down to the penny. Take that away and they are thrust into an uncomfortable situation... the unknown. What is more scary than the unknown? This is doubly true for 'Other Than Mexicans' because costs of deportation would presumably be higher as distances become greater and would seem to at least enhance the Homeland Security portion of this dubious program. This would also seem to become an additional factor the further you got from major cities with airports and the border in general.

No offense, but i don't see this happening.

I have a much better solution to this problem.

If Mexico wants to hand us all their problems, then they should hand over their land and resources.

Annex Mexico, and all of its abundant natural resources.  If we're taking on the burden of their poor as it is, then we'll take everything else.

Problem solved.

Logistically we can do anything.  If millions can evacuate Houston and if we can transport our military anywhere in the world sure we can move illegals, assuming we can find them all.

But do we really want to?  Not a pretty video.

I read the argument about "follow the money."  I wish I could type that with the ominous pronounciation I'm sure the writer intended.  Sure, let's follow the money.  My money goes to Pedro to build my house.  Because this guy is poor and is willing to live meagerly in the U.S. to help out his family in Guatemala, I give him less money than I would to his American counterpart.  Pedro does a good job and I happily pay him.  His money gets sent home via an American company (perhaps SafeSend by Bank of America, or wired by Western Union.)  His dollars flow into the hands of his poor family who now have a little better life.  And because we understand how currency really works, we know that those American dollars eventually flow back into the United States, in a process called Trade.

So here are the benefits:  I got my house built cheaper and better (because I had a wider choice in contracting options), Pedro got a job and my dollars went directly to a family that probably needed the aid, instead of via some inefficient government program where the local government and contractors can take a cut.  And that poor family in Guatemala now has a little bit more power in the form of dollars that it can exercise how it chooses, perhaps even in the form of a campaign contribution to a reformist candidate, or on an American import.

So where are the drawbacks?  I presume that some would say that "Pedro took an American's job."  Not likely.  First, Pedro probably works for an American contractor.  Second, I can't imagine any Republican would favor any private party getting work despite being the higher cost or lower quality provider.  Pedro's existence keeps American service providers on their toes so instead of them relying on a monopolistic strategy, they have to either keep their costs low or reposition themselves as a higher quality provider.  And judging from the quality of builders today, we can certainly use more quality in construction.

having a state-within-a-state (with strong socialist tendencies, which will be augmented immeasurably by the inexorable growth of the political correctness regime and the identity politics racket) inside San Diego, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Denver, etc.

If our folly on immigration policy has made it, by your argument, impossible, or at least deeply unwise, to secure our sovereign territory, then we might as well come out and say it:

America is no longer a sovereign nation.

You don't see it happening? Then we shall have to agree to disagree. I know a little bit about how things were organized in Venezuela before Hugo Chavez arrived, and I know a little bit about how things are in Mexico. My view is that if you put a cork in that Mexican bottle, you will see a Hugo Chavez clone arise before you can say, "Fidel Castro."

Before you sign on the dotted line to take on the problems of Mexico's population in return for their land, you may want to review the experience of the West Germans as they welcomed the East Germans back into the Fatherland when 'the wall' fell. Also, your proposed deal does not offer the Mexicans anything they are not going to get anyway through the simple expedient of having babies while "we" do not. If I'm not mistaken, a majority of the people under 18 in California are Hispanic. Warning: Objects in calendar are closer than they appear. You sayin' habla yet?

Look, we can't commit cultural suicide without expecting our geography to be overrun. That's just how the Earth works. Nature is a breeding contest. If you don't play, you can't win. When your women are all out trying to be CEOs instead of mothers, this is what happens; some other people come in and start taking over your country. It could be worse. At least the ones taking over this country aren't on some divine mission to kill us all.

I'm at peace with it. I figure I'll be exiting stage right about the time the phone machines all change to, "For English, press 2."

You just think I'm seem predictable, but its just the reflections of your own emanations.

I can't be the only one here who cares about the way spending has been out of control.  I see some political aspects to that that have worried me, that that just could be my own fevered imaginings.  I take it that your view is that all the pork has been rather indiscrimninately distributed, without fear or favor.

I noticed that you think Bush is deliberately not pushing or writing legislation and are wondering when Congress is going to stir itself to take some initiative.  I think you have an excellent point and I agree - it seems the Congress has rather lost the sense of its own prerogatives and responsibilities.

I do think that my point about power shifting to White House is the historical trend, and it's the very reason why you rail against a do-nothing Congress, so what's your beef with me?  I agree that Presidents have gained alot of power from FDR on, largely because of the advantages of that office and because Congress gave it to them.  

I don't disagree about Clinton, but do think that GWB has moved even more power into the WH, starting with energy policy, through abrogation of a number of treaties, restricting the flow of public information, with a marked ramp-up after 9/11 - taking us into the occupation of Iraq, the PATRIOT Act, and all of the legal positions asserted by the Administration with respect to lack of judicial review of decisions pertaining to unlawful combatants.  Without arguing the policy issues of these points, can you tell me if do you really disagree that these represent a further aggrandizement of WH power?

I do agree that "many of the things that have gone wrong with the Bush presidency" relate to the failure of Congress to act and to act responsibly.  But it is not clear to me that the Administration really wants to return power to Congress.  Maybe Bush just no longer has a firm legislative agenda and has lost the desire to lead?  But regardless of whether blame falls mainly on Congress or the Administration the current state of affairs is a shame, since we need leadership in many areas, and would squander the majority that Republicans have in both houses.

Is for a mass conversion to Catholicism. Lots of babies, all the time. Well, for some Catholics, anyway.

In the long run we're all dead, right? A truly inspiring patriotic sentiment, that.

As for demographics, Nick, sometimes the whole business seems to take on the character of an incantation. The magic of birthrate numbers. The "breeding contest" as Ultimate Reality. Have we not seen this sort of materialist reductionism before?

Moreover, these statistics paint is brushes about as broad as could be imagined. For one thing, the most cursory attention will reveal that birthrates are not the same between groups. We know, for instance, that white fertility rate is one of firmest statistical indicators of voting behavior. States where white women "breed" (in fact human being don't breed, they procreate: they participate, through an astonishing mystery, in the creation of a new immoral soul) at higher rates, vote Republican; and those states where white fertility is low, vote Democrat.

In short, it is quite reasonable to believe that it is precisely a rejection of Keynesian cynicism, or an antecedent affirmation of some philosophy which precludes that cynicism, which has put the Republican party in power.

The overall birthrate of the country, it is true, is low; but the birthrate of those groups which still believe, contra Keynes, that they actually owe something to their country, their people, their posterity even after they have passed away (the kind of people with whom a phrase like "our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor" still resonates), are high. Take a look at the nurseries of our orthodox churches on Sunday mornings if you doubt me.

So yes: I am willing to risk antagonizing the dysfunctional Mexican regime in order to maintain the character of my country. Bring it on.

I'm at peace with it. I figure I'll be exiting stage right about the time the phone machines all change to, "For English, press 2."

Don't you have children?

You just think I'm seem predictable, but its just the reflections of your own emanations.

Your penumbra-fu is weak.

Pork

I don't like pork. That's just the Critters buying their own re-elections with OPM. As for the level of spending per se, I am not against spending money to promote an actual agenda, as opposed to the agenda of staying in office. My view is that spending restraint by Republicans just conserves borrowing capacity for the next Democrat who gets in, who will then spend it to promote the liberal agenda. I've seen that movie enough times already.

I don't recall the White House invading Iraq without Congressional Approval. Nor do I recall the Patriot Act as consisting of a series of executive orders. So no, I do not agree that these represent some further aggrandizement of executive power. As for enemy combatants captured in battle, I do not believe an opposition party has ever before tried to meddle in that issue for political gain. I don't recall that even in Vietnam, when the antiwar movement was as shrill as it had ever been. I am not old enough to know whether that happened during WWII, but I sorta doubt it.

That we have endless growth of government and a spineless Congress is a consequence of a lack of term limits. The executive branch bureaucracies and the judicial branch are full of career government employees. If the legislature also fills up with government careerists, there is no longer any constituency in favor of limited government. They're all in there building their empire together. The spinelessness comes from the eternal need to get re-elected. If they knew it was 'two terms and you're out,' they might try to get something done while they were there. Now it's just, "I made it! How can I stay?" The answer to which is: don't rock the boat.

There is another phenomenon that allows the Congress to be spineless. There is an "animal spirit" thing in human beings that secretly longs for a strong fuerher. People want one guy they can point at and say, "It's his fault," even if what happened is a frigging hurricane. That's just human nature and there's nothing we can do about it.

I think you might be surprised. I foresee a decline in the "political correctness regime." Political correctness was not brought here from Mexico. That's a bunch of super-guilty white folks. The ones who aren't going to be a majority much longer.

I think that people who think it is possible to build a fence around the United States so as to be "sovereign" while simultaneously reproducing below the replacement rate are living in a dream world. Nothing in the history of Planet Earth suggests that such a thing is tenable. If our culture wishes to go out of business, we can do that, but the world is not going to stop for us. The world is out there being fruitful and multiplying. Just because we don't want to play anymore doesn't mean everybody else has to, or will, stop.

Some of the "worlds" in here are fruitful and multiplying too.

A truly inspiring patriotic sentiment, that.

There is such a thing as burnout, Paul. You know those diaries that Carey Roberts posts that no one reads or responds to? Well, you can find things like that on Usenet, written by me, from fifteen years ago. I was saying then that "fifteen years from now" (meaning today) we would be seeing articles about growing numbers of men not "opting in" to what marriage was becoming; about growing numbers of women "opting out" of becoming mothers, to the point that people from other cultures started appearing magically in our streets to take our place.

Nobody cared then. Nobody cares now. Nobody wants to admit what the destruction of gender roles has done to our culture, or that it is the path to cultural suicide. You watch; I'll get flamed just for saying that. No one wants to hear it. Everybody wants to look someplace else for the problem.

So I gave up. Now I just watch my civilization slide down the tube, its genetic and cultural legacy tossed in the trash by people who can't or won't admit to themselves that the world is not ours to control.

I absolutely agree with you that there are still people around who understand it; and who understand that they have a responsibility to keep their heritage alive. But alas, there do not seem to be enough of them to stop the headlong rush toward cultural suicide. I wish it were otherwise. But it isn't.

Remember that Peggy Noonan column about knowing that things are off the tracks, but not really understanding what's wrong? Well, I think I know what's wrong. But I'm not King, and I can't fix it.

But answer my question.

And how many Minuteman are there?

Are you willing to take off say, three months per year of guard duty and fo through Chicago neighborhoods and forcibly evict and move out the illegals?

I think you might be surprised. I foresee a decline in the "political correctness regime." Political correctness was not brought here from Mexico. That's a bunch of super-guilty white folks. The ones who aren't going to be a majority much longer.

PC didn't arise from the guilt-feelings of the mass of American whites, but was imposed from above, so the fact that whites will be an overall minority is beside the point.  Those "super-guilty" whites will continue to be a majority of the political, educational, and business élite, long after whites are a minority in the lower status brackets.  They support PC, and will increasingly support it as it will serve to legitimize their status in the face of the emerging non-white majority, and Latinos do and will support it because to them it is simply a beneficial assertion of group interest.

I'm not sure how to reconcile these two sentences: Nobody cared then. Nobody cares now. Nobody wants to admit what the destruction of gender roles has done to our culture, or that it is the path to cultural suicide. And: I absolutely agree with you that there are still people around who understand it; and who understand that they have a responsibility to keep their heritage alive.

I guess your primary point seems to be that there are not enough of these latter people. Very well: you might be right. Right as rain. But in no way does your sensible speculation (and it is, ineffaceably, speculation) justify a counsel of despair. This is the gravest problem with that famed American optimism: it turns our patriots into weak-kneed pansies. It is blind to tragedy.

Does a man not owe a duty to his home, his people, his country -- even if she is dying? Does piety cease because the things of man are mortal? It can only be an age of faithlessness that advises men to abandon the defense of what is good, merely because it is fatally imperiled; to retreat because the enemy is strong.

I agree, Nick: there is such a thing as burnout. And there is nothing dishonorable in it, unless it becomes despair -- for it is the essence of despair to despise and contemn the hope that is in one's fellows.

No.

President Bush is being realistic on this.

The reactionaries on the left want America gone, and on the right seem to want a civil war.

i would suggest that both ends in this are undesirable.

That we have endless growth of government and a spineless Congress is a consequence of a lack of term limits.

While I share your frustration with the spinelessness of a free-spending Congress, I doubt term limits will accomplish the goal. If elected representatives are there for a shorter time period, I believe it is even more likely that they will become beholden either to the unelected entrenched bureaucrats or vocal and well-financed special interest groups. The former becuase the elected representatives won't have sufficient time to become fully conversant with all of the topics, the latter because the newbies will need the cash to spread the word to get elected for their shortened terms.

If there's no hope, then why bother to post on redstate, or even to vote?  Why bother at all?  If all is truly lost, what are you still fighting for?  

There's not much to discuss concerning predictions of the future pulled out of our butts, so I move we wait and see :)

If we have higher work visa quotas and other types of legal immigration are changed to reflect real world demand, and at the same time, begin deporting every found illegal alien, there would be enormous pressure for them to go home and apply for the legal route.  

it is the essence of despair to despise and contemn the hope that is in one's fellows.

I don't think you'll see me doing that. I don't put down anybody's efforts to Stop The Madness, and I will still get into it sometimes myself. But I used to be a serious Caped Crusader on this stuff, and I just got burned out on it. I'm still paying $10 a month to run a web site that I haven't updated since 1998.

I did not want to become like this one guy whose last name escapes me now – Robert something-or-other – who became notable for his howling angry rants at men who wouldn't join the cause. I viewed that as berating the customers for refusing to buy the product. Instead I decided that it "wasn't soup yet" and I was just ahead of my time. I listen to the rants of some younger guys today, and I think that was the right call. There are a lot more of them now than there were then. People are starting to get antsy about where this is going, and that's good. But there's been virtually no progress in making repairs; it's still mostly people waking up to the danger. But few of them really want to face what the problem is, even when it hits them over the head.

Last night I posted an item on RedHot about some airlines in Australia and New Zealand banning men from sitting next to children on their airplanes. That's not an "incident." It's part of a huge cultural slide toward estranging the adult male population from the society's children. It's part and parcel of the "men are evil beasts" mantra from the feminist nutcases; it's part of the totally destructive manipulation of the family court system to push men out of their houses and away from their children on a wholesale basis, and for the flimsiest of reasons; it's a crusade by some very dedicated social engineers who think they are going to improve things by doing all this.

So today 40-odd per cent of the nation's children do not live in the same house with their biological father. As you know, this is all because men are evil beasts. But ask yourself: have you ever, in all of history, heard of a society where children were routinely taken away from their fathers by a King or a State? What we're doing here is unheard of. Is it even stable as a civilization? I can't believe it is. What incentive is there for men to defend and maintain their society when the basic human function of being a parent to their children is denied them by a state gone mad?

I'm just watching it happen. It's still getting worse. And most people still don't want to hear it. And my arm is tired from trying to ring the bell.

As I said elsewhere on this page, you can reduce illegal immigration by starting to enforce the laws, forcing many illegal aliens to self-deport, and forcing millions of illegal aliens not to bother coming here.

Anything like an amnesty will simply increase illegal immigration. In other words, that's going in the wrong direction. First, you need to start going in the right direction.

That would require the GOP to be able to stand up to their major contributors. They would have to stand up to the big banks, growers, retailers, food companies, and other corporations that love cheap labor.

And, that would require the GOP to stand up to the far-left race groups instead of working with them and in some cases sounding like them. Is there really that big of a difference between what Bush wants and says and what the National Council of The Race wants and says?

Obviously, you can't discredit the far-left race groups if you act and sound like them.

Giving up on being a Caped Crusader is not the same thing as giving up on life. Maybe some better Caped Crusaders will come along. Maybe I was a Caped Crusader before people were ready for one. I can't tell. All I know is that I put in my ten years, and I had enough of it.

Now I work on stuff where I can actually get the rock to move. It's more gratifying. Pushing against a rock that won't move, and that almost nobody wants to help you move, gets old after a while.

Do you have a source on the 1/3 number? Although I agree that a large number of illegals showing up in prison -- 1/3 sounds really high.

Nick, I jumped in this thread when, to the simple demand that we "physically closing the border," we replied ominously about a "communist state within 30 miles of San Diego" armed by the Chinese.

With due respect, it is difficult to see is as anything but, as I put it, "contemning the hope that is in one's fellows."

A guy suggests that this country do what is perhaps the most basic obligation of a sovereign state -- the security of territorial integrity -- and you counter with grim predictions about Commies armed to the teeth at the gates of San Diego.

Even if it is an accurate prediction and not (what  seems more likely) wild alarmism, so what? Our territorial integrity is still the obligation of our government, no matter what our neighbors think of it.

...they would seal the border for us.  Isn't that a commie specialty?

If we fine/jail the employers that hire illegals and advertise the fact widely there will be less hiring.  When the jobs dry up then there will be a whole lot less illegals coming for the non-existent jobs.

Mexico is an armpit. The government is corrupt from the policeman on the beat to the President in the palace. It's not even clear that the government holds sway over more than 60% of the country. Drug lords run a bunch of it, and there's some tribe down there that's basically declared itself a sovereign nation.

That place is ripe for the emergence of a Hugo Chavez type. If the elections weren't also corrupt, it might have happened already.

Now you can make all the jokes you want about "commies at the gates," but the Chinese are already building who-knows-what in Venezuela, and who-knows-what in Panama, and the last thing we need is Chinese building who-knows-what in the interior of Mexico. All that's gonna take is the election of a sympathetic Marxist. Of what use is your fence against a Chinese who-knows-what?

Obiously, we cannot let every Mexican into the United States. But if we "close the borders," as many advocate, we will be bottling up something that can only explode. And then we could end up with hundreds of Chinese nukes four minutes away. That is not funny.

Well, if you believe in the definition from the likes of Buchanan and Brimelow (which I reject).

American culture is unique.  Especially in what it is.  It is one that does not exclude people based on race, religion, or national origin.  It's more of a mindset than other cultures.

Ronald Reagan described a letter he received as he was leaving office:

He wrote that you can go to live in France, but you can't become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Italy, but you can't become a German, an Italian. He went through Turkey, Greece, Japan and other countries. but he said anyone, from any corner of the world, can come to live in the United States and become an American.

In a sense, the American culture has proven to be a remarkably agile thing that has handled a very broad range of people from across the world.  Look at Colin Powell, Miguel Estrada, Alberto Gonzales, Balint Vazsonyi, Pat Morita, and a host of others.  

Ronald Reagan had it right in that speech - and it's probably the biggest reason that the arguments from Pat Buchanan, Peter Brimelow, and even Michelle Malkin (among others) infuriate me.  They seem to think the world will end unless we pull away the welcome mat.  That's crap.

You want to see the basics of American culture?  Read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights.  Much of it is there, and it has worked well for nearly twenty-three decades.

Americans are just going to look a little different, that's all.

Do not put me in a box with Buchanan. Or Malkin. If they are out there trying to own the term "cultural suicide" then I will have to stop using it.

I used the term in the George Gilder sense, where it refers to a fertility rate below the replacement rate. If you're doing that, you're committing cultural suicide, irrespective of what might be happening with immigration. We see this in Russia today, where the population numbers are contracting rapidly. If the Swedes keep doing what they're doing, there won't be enough ethnic Swedes to fill a football stadium in about 7 generations. That happens with or without Moslems in Malmo.

The issue is gender roles, not immigration. The penalty for fuzzing up gender roles is that your culture goes out of business. This appears to be a rule... one nobody knew was there.

legislators with informational and organizational disadvantages, leaving Congress further weakened relative to the WH and lobbyists.  

I note that Congress could directly increase its power, resources and expertise by strengthening the GAO, CRS and the committee staffs - is there any discussion of this anywhere?  It could also exter more control over rulemaking, either in the executive departments or the "independent" administrative agencies that are not formally within the executive branch.  One of the ways that Congress has weakened itself is by pushing off its legislative functions to these agencies and departments, thereby surrendering much influence and discretion to the WH and courts.

Unfortunately, our policies seem to be set by people who can't see the enormous additional drawbacks in the scenario you presented.

Think of this as a "think things through test". If the reader doesn't see the drawbacks, think through all the ramifications of the scenario, and let us know what you think.

My view is that spending restraint by Republicans just conserves borrowing capacity for the next Democrat who gets in, who will then spend it to promote the liberal agenda. I've seen that movie enough times already.

Interesting justification for shamefully irresponsible spending; while fun, hope you see it for what it is.

I deliberately tried to avoid discussing the merits of policies so we could avoid the bogging in your second paragraph.  I think that even those who fervently support all of the policies ought to be able to recognize they represent a net power gain to the President at the expense of the Congress and judiciary.

Your musings on the source of Congressional weakness are interesting, but it seems your pessimism and nostalgia for simpler days interrupted your creative solution output-proclaimer.  

I agree with Gadfly on term limits, and do not think they are appropriate in either the Article III courts or government service.  We want independence in the federal judiciary and expertise in the agencies - but to minimize agency "capture" and politicization concerns I made suggestions to Gadfly.

In addition I think we should consider the following points - (i) it may be useful for the Supreme Court to blow further life into a restrictive interpretation of the Commerce Clause - this will push some problem solving down to State legislatures, which are closer to the people and can experiement with local solutions; and (ii) we should discuss whether there are alternative ways of choosing our representatives that would give greater voice to the middle without marginalizing the wings - such as less partisan jerrymandering and cumulative voting, that would encourage candidates to coampaign for all votes while allowing committed interest groups still to ensure representation.

Interesting justification for shamefully irresponsible spending

Been there, done that. Let's just say that I have been greatly pleased to see who agrees with me.

Since the President is charged with executing the laws, Congress shall pass no law that does not in some way empower the President. But the Congress can always yank on the money leash, so they are still in charge.

I am all in favor of pushing decision-making down to the states. I am a great believer in the "let's make 50 small mistakes fast, and learn from them" theory of progress. When everything is centralized, any mistake you make is a big mistake, and your second try is likely to be a big mistake as well.

I'm not convinced that gerrymandering is all bad. The Critters with the safe seats are the only ones we see taking a stand on anything. The rest of them are too busy trying to hide from anything controversial.

- safe seats.  But wouldn't it be better to achieve that by lengthening each term, than creating districts that deliberately leave some citizens without a voice?

I view gerrymandering as one of the ways the two-party system has corrupted politics into producing all-or-nothing outcomes - Reps or Dems - including in Presidential elections.  I think we'd be better off if we experimented with cumulative voting systems.

wouldn't it be better to achieve that by lengthening each term, than creating districts that deliberately leave some citizens without a voice?

I'm the wrong guy to ask. I live in a District that has no voice whatsoever, and even if it did, I wouldn't have one.

cumulative voting systems

Maybe the space aliens will come and impose it for you. I can't see a legislature composed of people who just won their seats under the current system voting to change that system.

But can't we try to seek change by discussion of problems and solutions?  Isn't that what RS is about?

No. RS is a Republican community where we meet and strategize on how to pulverize the donks, drive the liberals over the cliffs, and make mp3's from the lamentations of their women.

I heard an interview with the leader of the Minutemen. He came across nutty and unreliable.

Commandante Zero?

I'd like to hear what the drawbacks are so I can challenge them proper.  I grow weary of veiled nativism and isolationism.  Pat Buchanan and his ilk are modern-day dodo birds.